Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 23, 2023

Laureano v. GMB Restaurant, Inc.

Judge
Vyskocil
Docket
1:22-cv-09213
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Laureano v. GMB Restaurant, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the action for failure to prosecute, allowing restoration by February 23, 2023, or dismissal with prejudice.

Who this affects

John Laureano and the defendants, GMB Restaurant, Inc., doing business as Step In, and PPC Commercial, LLC.

What happened

In Laureano v. GMB Restaurant, Inc., John Laureano sued GMB Restaurant, Inc., doing business as Step In, and PPC Commercial, LLC. The defendants’ responses were due December 22, 2022, but none were timely filed, and the court found that Laureano failed to move the case forward.

The court ordered Laureano to explain by January 18, 2023, why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. He did not file the required letter.

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil discontinued the action for failure to prosecute, without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring it to the court’s calendar if Laureano applied by February 23, 2023. If no application was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Laureano v. GMB Restaurant, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-09213
Judge
Vyskocil
Date
Jan. 23, 2023

Background

John Laureano filed the complaint on October 27, 2022, against GMB Restaurant, Inc., doing business as Step In, and PPC Commercial, LLC. Affidavits showing service of the summons and complaint were filed on December 17, 2022. The summonses stated that the defendants’ responses were due December 22, 2022.

No timely responses were filed. The opinion also states that Laureano failed to prosecute the case, meaning he did not take the required steps to move the action forward. The court ordered him to file a letter by January 18, 2023, explaining why the action should not be dismissed under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which permits dismissal when a plaintiff fails to prosecute. No letter had been filed by January 23, 2023.

Disposition

The court ordered that the action be discontinued for failure to prosecute, without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring the action to the court’s calendar if an application to restore it was made by February 23, 2023. The order further stated that, if no such application was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice. Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil issued the order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.